many ways by a return to the early practice of the Government and to
the true principle of legislation, which requires that every measure
shall stand or fall according to its own merits. If it were understood
that to attach to an appropriation bill a measure irrelevant to the
general object of the bill would imperil and probably prevent its
final passage and approval, a valuable reform in the parliamentary
practice of Congress would be accomplished. The best justification
that has been offered for attaching irrelevant riders to appropriation
bills is that it is done for convenience sake, to facilitate the
passage of measures which are deemed expedient by all the branches
of Government which participate in legislation. It can not be claimed
that there is any such reason for attaching this amendment of the
election laws to the Army appropriation bill. The history of the
measure contradicts this assumption. A majority of the House of
Representatives in the last Congress was in favor of section 6 of this
bill. It was known that a majority of the Senate was opposed to
it, and that as a separate measure it could not be adopted. It was
attached to the Army appropriation bill to compel the Senate to
assent to it. It was plainly announced to the Senate that the Army
appropriation bill would not be allowed to pass unless the proposed
amendments of the election laws were adopted with it. The Senate
refused to assent to the bill on account of this irrelevant section.
Congress thereupon adjourned without passing an appropriation bill for
the Army, and the present extra session of the Forty-sixth Congress
became necessary to furnish the means to carry on the Government.

The ground upon which the action of the House of Representatives is
defended has been distinctly stated by many of its advocates. A week
before the close of the last session of Congress the doctrine in
question was stated by one of its ablest defenders as follows: